bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–02–01
seven papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Altmetric attention and citation performance in sport science: a cross-sectional analysis of 30 top-ranked journals.
  2. Academic Productivity of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Fellowship Programs and Affiliated Faculty.
  3. Machine learning based screening of potential paper mill publications in cancer research: methodological and cross sectional study.
  4. Volume isn't openness: misaligned assessment and Open Science adoption in Ecuador.
  5. Gender and leadership equity in neurosurgery: a systematic review of representation and authorship trends (2000-2025).
  6. Research waste in total knee arthroplasty studies: an observational study on registered trials.
  7. Response to: beyond citations: incorporating altmetrics to reveal the broader impact of optometry research in Africa.
  1. Front Sports Act Living. 2025 ;7 1710760
    Altmetric attention and citation performance in sport science: a cross-sectional analysis of 30 top-ranked journals.
    Yanbing Zhou, Ziwei Luo.
       Background: Disconnection between efficacy and implementation remained in sport and exercise science, making it vital to understand the relationship between research quality and public attention. Citation score (CS) and Journal impact factor (JIF) are the main metrics of research quality. Alternatively, Altmetric score (AS) tracks article dissemination on social media to reflect public attention. This study aimed to explore the CS-AS correlations on levels of article types and journals, and predictors of citation performance.
    Methods: Web of Science Core Collection was systematically searched for research and review studies published in 2022 in the top-ranked 30 journals under the sport science category of Journal Citation Reports™. Publications from 2022 were selected to accumulate citations while preserving contemporary representativeness. CS and AS scores were retrieved from the website Dimensions (https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication).
    Results: A total of 5,106 articles were retrieved with a median CS and AS of 10 and 6, respectively. A significant CS-AS correlation was observed (ρ = 0.3481, p < 0.0001). The correlation strength of the review study (ρ = 0.4047, p < 0.0001) was significantly higher (p = 0.001) than that of research articles (ρ = 0.2975, p < 0.0001). Significant CS-AS correlations were found in 25 out of 30 journals (ρ ranged from 0.7084 to 0.1238, p ranged from 0.05 to <0.0001). AS and JIF were significant predictors of CS, with the strength of AS (β = 0.2060, p < 0.001) higher than JIF (β = 0.0720, p < 0.001).
    Conclusion: In the 30 top-ranked sport science journals, media attention was correlated with citation performance, with the strength higher in reviews than in research articles. The significant correlations showed up in 25 out of 30 included journals with different strengths. Social media attention can be a more powerful predictor than journal prestige in sport science, with a moderate predictive influence.
    Keywords:  altmetric score; citation count; exercise; health; journal impact factor; sport
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1710760
  2. R I Med J (2013). 2026 Feb 02. 109(2): 29-35
    Academic Productivity of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Fellowship Programs and Affiliated Faculty.
    Peter Boufadel, Jad Lawand, Tarishi Parmar, Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y Fares, Adam Z Khan, John G Horneff, Joseph A Abboud.
       BACKGROUND: Academic productivity is an important factor in determining career success and institutional ranking. The Hirsch-index (h-index) is a validated measure that assesses both quantity and quality of research output. The aim was to explore factors associated with increased academic productivity among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons(ASES)-recognized fellowship programs and faculty.
    METHODS: Shoulder and elbow surgery fellowship programs and affiliated faculty were identified via the ASES website, searched on December 6, 2023. Program-specific and faculty-specific characteristics were recorded. The h-index and total publication number were used as metrics and determined for each faculty member using the Scopus database.
    RESULTS: A total of 156 faculty members from 34 ASES fellowship programs were included, of which 96.2% were male, 77.6% academically affiliated, and 81.4% completed a shoulder and elbow surgery fellowship. The average years in practice was 18.3 years. The average h-index and total publications per fellowship program were 24.9(SD 12.5, IQR 16.6-33) and 520.3 (SD 458.8, IQR 181-649), respectively. Academic affiliation and faculty number were significant factors associated with increased h-index and total publications of a program. The average h-index and total publications per faculty member were 26.9 (SD 22.7, IQR 9.5-38.5) and 125.4(SD 145.4, IQR 26-169), respectively. Academic title of Professor, years in practice, and research staff were independent factors associated with faculty member productivity.
    CONCLUSION: ASES-recognized fellowship programs and affiliated faculty demonstrated a high level of academic productivity. This information can help shoulder and elbow surgeons benchmark and further improve their research output and academic influence.
    Keywords:  Academic productivity; fellowship; h-index; research; shoulder and elbow surgery
  3. BMJ. 2026 Jan 29. 392 e087581
    Machine learning based screening of potential paper mill publications in cancer research: methodological and cross sectional study.
    Baptiste Scancar, Jennifer A Byrne, David Causeur, Adrian G Barnett.
       OBJECTIVES: To train and validate a machine learning model to distinguish paper mill publications from genuine cancer research articles, and to screen the cancer research literature to assess the prevalence of papers that have textual similarities to paper mill papers.
    DESIGN: Methodological and cross sectional study applying a BERT (bidirectional encoder representations from transformers) based, text classification model to article titles and abstracts.
    SETTING: Retracted paper mill publications listed in the Retraction Watch database were used for model training. The cancer research corpus was screened by the model using the PubMed database restricted to original cancer research articles published between 1999 and 2024.
    POPULATION: The model was trained on 2202 retracted paper mill papers and validated on independent data collected by image integrity experts. 2.6 million cancer research papers were screened.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification performance of the model. Prevalence of papers flagged as similar to retracted paper mill publications with 95% confidence intervals and their distribution over time, by country, publisher, cancer type, research area, and within high impact journals (top 10%).
    RESULTS: The model achieved an accuracy of 0.91. When applied to the cancer research literature, it flagged 261 245 of 2 647 471 papers (9.87%, 95% confidence interval 9.83 to 9.90) and revealed a large increase in flagged papers from 1999 to 2024, both across the entire corpus and in the top 10% of journals by impact factor. More than 170 000 papers affiliated with Chinese institutions were flagged, accounting for 36% of Chinese cancer research articles. Most publishers had published substantial numbers of flagged papers. Flagged papers were overrepresented in fundamental research and in gastric, bone, and liver cancer.
    CONCLUSIONS: Paper mills are a large and growing problem in the cancer literature and are not restricted to low impact journals. Collective awareness and action will be crucial to address the problem of paper mill publications.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-087581
  4. Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 ;10 1707881
    Volume isn't openness: misaligned assessment and Open Science adoption in Ecuador.
    Julio Guerra, Miguel Naranjo-Toro, Andrea Basantes-Andrade.
      Open Science aims to make research more transparent, reusable, and socially valuable, yet adoption may lag where assessment emphasizes journal prestige over openness. This study examines how research-assessment incentives align with Open Science practices in Ecuador and identifies policy levers associated with change. Using a mixed-methods design, we combine a review of national and institutional policies, a bibliometric analysis of Ecuador-affiliated outputs from 2013-2023, and a nationwide researcher survey (n ≈ 418), analyzed with multilevel logistic models, multinomial logit, and negative binomial regressions. Scientific output increased markedly, peaking at 5,070 articles in 2023; 66.7% were open access, predominantly via gold routes. In 2021, 59.3% of citations were self-citations. Despite high familiarity with Open Science (85%), implementation was limited: 22% reported depositing data and 35% publishing via diamond or gold routes. Greater reliance on journal-centric metrics was associated with lower odds of adopting open practices (odds ratio ≈ 0.72), while comprehensive institutional support-repositories with deposit mandates, research-data services, and licensing guidance-was associated with higher odds (odds ratio ≈ 1.65). Sensitivity to article processing charges was associated with shifts toward green and diamond routes. Findings suggest that socio-institutional factors dominate barriers and that aligning rules, services, and responsible assessment may help make openness the default, improving quality, equity, and reuse.
    Keywords:  Ecuador; Open Science; open access; research assessment; science policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1707881
  5. Neurochirurgie. 2026 Jan 24. pii: S0028-3770(26)00012-3. [Epub ahead of print]72(2): 101778
    Gender and leadership equity in neurosurgery: a systematic review of representation and authorship trends (2000-2025).
    Tomasz Tykocki, Mohamed Eltayeb.
       BACKGROUND: Neurosurgery remains one of the least gender-diverse surgical specialties. We quantified gender representation across the neurosurgical pipeline and assessed authorship and mentorship patterns.
    METHODS: PRISMA-compliant systematic review (2000-2025) of databases and neurosurgical society sources. Random-effects models were used to pool proportions; meta-regression estimated temporal trends; mentorship effect was analyzed as odds ratio for female first authorship when the senior author was female.
    RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies (27 workforce/leadership; 11 authorship/editorial) from 75 countries (>40,000 neurosurgeons) were included. Female residents: 20.2% (95% CI 18.0-22.5); female consultants: 18.9% (95% CI 16.1-21.8); female department chairs: 4.5% (95% CI 3.2-5.9). Female first authors: 16.9%; female senior authors: 8.9%; female-female pairs: 2.1%. Female senior authorship more than doubled the odds of a female first author (pooled OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.86-3.17). Thirty-eight studies from 75 countries were included, representing >40,000 neurosurgeons. Women accounted for 20.2% (95% CI 18.0-22.5) of trainees, 18.9% (95% CI 16.1-21.8) of practicing neurosurgeons, and 4.5% (95% CI 3.2-5.9) of department leaders. Female first authorship was 16.9% and senior authorship 8.9%. Female senior authors more than doubled the odds of female first authorship (OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.86-3.17).
    CONCLUSION: Entry into neurosurgery has improved for women, but leadership and senior authorship remain disproportionately male. Increasing the number of women in senior roles is likely to have a multiplicative effect on authorship and visibility.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Equity; Female; Gender; Neurosurgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2026.101778
  6. BMJ Open. 2026 Jan 28. 16(1): e092409
    Research waste in total knee arthroplasty studies: an observational study on registered trials.
    Annabelle R Iken, Michiel Schaap, Rudolf W Poolman, Maaike G J Gademan.
       BACKGROUND: Timely publication of preregistered study outcomes is not self-evident. Discrepancies can lead to significant research waste.
    OBJECTIVES: To assess timely (within 7 years) and consistent publication of preregistered primary outcomes and associated factors of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) studies registered between 2000 and 2017 over time.
    DESIGN: An observational study.
    DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar.
    PARTICIPANTS: Registered TKA trials at ClinicalTrials.Gov between 2000 and 2017.
    DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: ClinicalTrials.Gov's required and optional data elements for registering a study and the preregistered and published primary outcome, defined as the outcome stated in the primary outcome field on ClinicalTrials.Gov. We used descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses.
    RESULTS: 1352 registered TKA (1072 interventional; 280 observational) studies were included, with 967 (811 interventional; 156 observational) unique references. Regarding the publication of preregistered primary outcomes within 7 years, the results for interventional trials were 0% (2000), which increased to 59.6% (2017). Observational studies were timely published in 0% (2000) and 37.5% (2017). Interventional trials and observational studies not funded by industry were more likely to have timely and consistent publication of their primary outcomes. Drug intervention trials were more likely to be timely and consistently published than procedure-focused trials. Phase 3 interventional trials were more likely, while phase 1 trials were less likely to be consistently published on time.
    CONCLUSION: Despite ongoing efforts to improve publication rates, over a third of interventional trials remain unpublished within 7 years. For observational studies, the rate is even lower, with only two-fifths published on time, contributing to significant research waste.
    PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021246599.
    Keywords:  Information Extraction; Knee; Orthopedics; REGISTRIES; Research Design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092409
  7. Clin Exp Optom. 2026 Jan 26. 1-2
    Response to: beyond citations: incorporating altmetrics to reveal the broader impact of optometry research in Africa.
    Nathan Efron.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2026.2619493
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒02‒11 at 6:15.